Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29288256›Full record

ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2018

Integrating tools for non-targeted analysis research and chemical safety evaluations at the US EPA.

Jon R Sobus, John F Wambaugh, Kristin K Isaacs, Antony J Williams, Andrew D McEachran, Ann M Richard, Christopher M Grulke, Elin M Ulrich, Julia E Rager, Mark J Strynar and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jon R SobusU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. sobus.jon@epa.gov.
John F WambaughU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Kristin K IsaacsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Antony J WilliamsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Andrew D McEachranOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Participant, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Ann M RichardU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Christopher M GrulkeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Elin M UlrichU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Julia E RagerOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Participant, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Mark J StrynarU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Seth R NewtonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tens-of-thousands of chemicals are registered in the U.S. for use in countless processes and products. Recent evidence suggests that many of these chemicals are measureable in environmental and/or biological systems, indicating the potential for widespread exposures. Traditional public health research tools, including in vivo studies and targeted analytical chemistry methods, have been unable to meet the needs of screening programs designed to evaluate chemical safety. As such, new tools have been developed to enable rapid assessment of potentially harmful chemical exposures and their attendant biological responses. One group of tools, known as "non-targeted analysis" (NTA) methods, allows the rapid characterization of thousands of never-before-studied compounds in a wide variety of environmental, residential, and biological media. This article discusses current applications of NTA methods, challenges to their effective use in chemical screening studies, and ways in which shared resources (e.g., chemical standards, databases, model predictions, and media measurements) can advance their use in risk-based chemical prioritization. A brief review is provided of resources and projects within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) that provide benefit to, and receive benefits from, NTA research endeavors. A summary of EPA's Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT) is also given, which makes direct use of ORD resources to benefit the global NTA research community. Finally, a research framework is described that shows how NTA methods will bridge chemical prioritization efforts within ORD. This framework exists as a guide for institutions seeking to understand the complexity of chemical exposures, and the impact of these exposures on living systems.

Indexed as

United States Environmental Protection AgencyChemical SafetyDatabases, FactualEnvironmental ExposureHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsUnited StatesENTACTExposomeNon-targeted analysisSuspect screening

Identifiers

PMID29288256
PMCPMC6661898
OpenAlexW2779125761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.